I was in Target the other day when I ran across the monster of the midway. There was a young boy about 4 years old throwing a world class hissy fit. His mother was screaming at him with threats no one believed. I wondered how bad it was at home. One thing was certain; this kid is going to be a real handful unless something or someone intervenes. All of us have been frustrated by our children, from time to time, but most of us learn that meaningless threats seldom work. The worst threat is one which accomplishes nothing, even if carried out. My favorite is: “don’t make me tell you again.” That always works! Another classic is: “keep it up and you’ll be sorry.” Teddy Roosevelt figured this out. That is why he said: “speak softly, but carry a big stick.”
Unfortunately we have an administration that often speaks loudly and is terrified of sticks. How many times have we heard Obama say that if Syria uses chemical weapons he will take action? Well, here we are. A lot of people believe that Syria has used chemical weapons. The New York Times seems to think so.
If you read the test of John Kerry’s little speech, he doesn’t say that Syria has used chemical weapons. Instead he says he thinks they did, but he isn’t sure, but they are acting suspicious because they aren’t cooperating with the investigation. Gee John…check out Benghazi if you want to see that little trick. By the way John, weren’t you the one who said Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat with nuclear weapons?
In the meantime RINO Republicans are egging on Obama to take action:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/25/mccain-graham-call-military-action-syria-chemical-/
It is embarrassing when someone as naïve and incompetent as Barack Obama is more rational than top Republicans. Even if these guys are right, they are wrong. There is no chance that Obama will use sufficient force to enable a good result in Syria. He is capable of creating massive destruction, but totally incapable of managing the aftermath.
The most Obama will do is launch a couple of cruise missiles and then only with the permission of the UN and/or NATO. He is almost certain to kill a lot of innocent civilians. One of the big problems with Syria is that the problems won’t be confined to Syria. A Washington Times article last fall discusses this topic:
If, and that is a big IF, we are successful in getting rid of Assad, odds are that he will be replaced by al Qaeda. At best there will be chaos that will make post war Iraq look like the Garden of Eden. Assad definitely has weapons of mass destruction. So what happens if he loses power? Does anyone think the UN or NATO will send in troops to stabilize the country? Please! At least some of those WMD will end up in the hands of terrorists. There are hundreds, if not thousands of hand fired surface to air missiles loose thanks to Obama botching things in Libya. It is bad enough to think of some al Qaeda operative armed with a missile that can take down an airliner. But that pales in comparison to al Qaeda getting its hands on some real nasty stuff, like nerve gas.
I must admit I don’t know what to do about Syria, but I am totally convinced that Obama will make things worse. That is easy to predict, because Obama has made everything worse. He has proven himself capable of taking any bad situation and adding insult to injury.
I personally think we have only two viable options. We send in the troops, take over the country and clean out the trash, or we avoid getting involved at all. Anything in between is a recipe for disaster. Since there is zero chance that we will do what it really takes, we should just stay out. If the fight isn’t worth winning it isn’t worth fighting.
Instead of people like John McCain giving stupid advice, Republicans should just point out that Obama is Commander in Chief and we would be very interested in knowing how he plans to deal with this.
One final thought. I am not totally convinced that Assad was the one who used those chemical weapons. Putin says that Assad was already winning, so he didn’t need to do that. Based on recent reports, that seems to be an accurate assessment. The following blog from the Telegraph UK is typical of what others are reporting:
Use of chemical weapons would be an act of desperation. If Putin is right, Assad is far from desperate. But if the rebels are losing, do you really think they would hesitate to kill innocent women and children and blame it on Assad? Al Qaeda is deeply entrenced with some of the rebels. People who won’t hesitate to kill themselves won’t hesitate to kill anyone else. Why would Assad decide now to use chemical weapons? He is one vicious and unpredictable dude, but he would seem to have little motivation for this.
At the moment, everyone seems to think that Assad is guilty. But, these are the same people who thought Saddam Hussein had large quantities of WMD. The first casualty of any war is always the truth. I hope I am wrong, but a couple of thoughts keep circling my mind. There are a lot of people who desperately want us to use military force in Syria. So far these people have been frustrated by President Obama’s hesitation and indecisiveness. If, as reported above, Assad seems to be winning the war, would at least some of them welcome the use of chemical weapons to provide the incentive needed to get Obama to take action. Perhaps they “WANT” to believe that Assad used chemical weapons.
The ultimate act of stupidity would be to get involved in a war, we are not prepared to fight and which we have no strategy to win, because of piss poor intelligence. This is particularly true when both China and Russia are strongly opposed. Since this is easily the worst possible outcome, it is sadly the most likely thing to happen.
TDM